K.V. SUBBANNA vs KUSUMA

- IN this complaint, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for having cheated him by the.

OPPOSITE Party No. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant. OPPOSITE Party Nos. 2 and 3 are the officials in the State Bank of India, Mysore. OPPOSITE Party No. 1 is also an employee in the S.B.I., Branch at Bangalore. It is the case of the complainant that he kept a lakh of rupees in the joint account of himself and his daughter-in-law Opposite Party No. 1, in the Branch of the S.B.I. at Mysore. The said deposit amount of Rs. 1 lakh kept by him in the joint account was transferred to the Branch of the said Bank of India, Bangalore in the same joint account of the complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. This was done to deceive the complainant. The complainant further averred that Opposite Party No. 1 withdraw the said amount from the joint account from the Bangalore Branch of the S.B.I. without the knowledge of the complainant and thus. Opposite Party No. 1 cheated him. The complainant on the basis of these averments, sought compensation from the Opposite Parties in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

The Opposite Parties filed their version and denied the allegations made regarding the fraud played and having cheated the complainant.

OPPOSITE Party No. 1, further averred that the said amount was kept in a single fixed deposit payable to "Former or Survivor". So OPPOSITE Party no. 1, being "former" was entitled to withdraw the same and so she had withdrawn and there was no question of any deceit or fraud committed by any of the OPPOSITE Parties. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties regarding the maintainability of the complaint.

THE Complainant, at para 3 of the complaint, has averred, thus: "3Thinking that the State Bank of India will aid all necessary service, the complainant made his mind to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-in joint account in his name and his daughter-in-law, Smt. Kusuma who is an employee in the State Bank of India, but all the three opponents have played a role of fraud against complainant."

In the same para, the complainant had further averred, thus: "In the meanwhile these two the Branch Manager and Smt. Usha joined hands with Smt. Kusuma to held her in her affairs, help her to enrich her, help her to get Rs. 1,00,000/-, help her to deceive the complainant, her own father-in-law, helped her to transfer the joint account to the Bangalore Branch without giving even a due to the other person in the joint account. Likewise all these three acted deceiving the complainant, played the fraud against him, made him to believe their words and cheated him."

THE complainant, has in the same para, further averred, thus: "Since all the three played a role of mischievous, played a role of fraud, played a role of indecency and succeeded in their attempt to knock the money of the poor complainant. Hence all the three severally, jointly liable to pay this amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. After the account is transferred to Bangalore, Smt Kusuma had drawn all the amount cheating her father-in-law."

At para 11 of the complaint of the complainant, the complainant has averred, thus: "11. In the said circumstances all the three joined hands to hand in cheating the complainant, defrauding the complainant and also making him a fool in their hands and at the last succeeded without giving a clue to the complainant transferred the account to the Bangalore Branch and helped Smt. Kusuma to draw the amount as soon it is transferred to the Bangalore Branch."

Thus, allegations of the complainant show deficiency of service due to commission of fraud, deception and cheating. The allegations of deficiency in service is only incidental to deception, fraud and cheating. The determination of deception, fraud and cheating will not be undertaken by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The National Commission, while considering such an aspect, in Devashish Mitra v. The Managing Director, Lakshmi Varsha Company & Another, reported in Vol. I (1992) CPJ 30 (NC), at para 8, held as under: "8. Again the appellant had charged the respondent with the commission of fraud, deception and cheating. Deficiency in service in a particular case may be incidental t deception, fraud and cheating, but the appellant/complainant has to seek redress for such offences and consequent for the damage done to him under the appropriate law in the appropriate law Courts. Determination of deception, fraud and cheating will not ordinarily be undertaken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and this must be determined before we can reach the consequential issue of alleged deficiency in service, if any."

HAVING regard to the principle, as laid down by the National Commission, and the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we hold that the complainant cannot invoke the Consumer Disputes Redressal machinery and so we hold the complaint as ''untenable''. ORDER In the Result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.